# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 10 February 2024.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
Within the working group, this document was seen as valuable since it defines.
the IPFIX entities of the draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options defined UDP options and
is going to be submitted to the IESG at about the same time while aligned with
the newly defined TCP options IPFIX entities described in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05#section-4.
The authors decided to keep the UDP options IPFIX entities definition separate
from draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh due to the draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options
dependecies.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
Consesus was achieved without any opposing voice.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
This document defines new IPFIX entities for new UDP options defined in
draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options. The working group is not aware of any existing or
planned implementations. IPFIX entity 209 tcpOptions appears to be,
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/gaJ9-A6i3Z4grgHT86OUym_DAqA/,
merly used to its ambiguity and suggested to deprecate as specified in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-10#section-8.1.
It is expected that the IPFIX entities defined in this document are going to be
implemented.
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
Yes, the document received.
Transport area
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/p9WGo52u2pBhjr8kIHjeYPwHECc/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/953SHdHE5-XmlvlneaDqHy2HmeA/
Internet area
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/29dxzf6kBHMYrDP9cIjlqcwqPKc/
and IPFIX doctor
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/zuDCHGyj1Pr9MbSo7aE1AJU2bSY/
reviews while Operations area is pending. While the Internet Area review
remarked one minor point to be aligned with draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options about
applicability of UDP options in legacy transport receivers which was addressed
by the authors, the Transport Area directorate and the IPFIX doctors challenges
the correctness of the udpOptions data type. Wherever
this should be a new data type unsigned256 or a bitfield type instead of
unsigned according to reduced size encoding defined in
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7011#section-6.2. The authors therefore
interoduced a new unsigned256 data type in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-08#name-new-ipfix-information-element
and a consensus,
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/YbOuevvacJ0hwKRjPGaSaMVXRgk/,
has been achieved.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
IPFIX doctor review
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/zuDCHGyj1Pr9MbSo7aE1AJU2bSY/
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342][5]?
N/A
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
N/A (other than IDNITS)
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes, it is. I have reviewed the document and had minor comments on wording which
was addressed by the authors.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
Transport, Internet area and IPFIX doctors have reviewed. I do not believe
detailed subsequent reviews are required.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard is being requested for new IPFIX entities according to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7011#section-13, while waiting for
more implementations and operational experience.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
A poll was sent to the list. The named authors has replied that there is no IPR.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
Some minor found and already addressed by authors.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
N/A
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
No
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options is being prepared to be submitted to IESG.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No
20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
The IPFIX entities created by this document are consistent with the body of the
document. IPFIX entities are added to the existing registry as defined in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7012#section-7.4.
The IPFIX entities created by this document references an IANA registry being
created by
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-28#section-25
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
N/A to this document but to draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/